It would seem that the Watergate story from beginning to end could be used as a primer on the American political system.
Using these unnamed sources, if done properly, carefully and fairly, provides more accountability in government.
Lawyers didn't seriously get involved in the Watergate stories until quite late, when we realized we were on to something.
The fact of the Watergate cover-up is not nearly as interesting as the step into making the cover-up. And when you understand the step, you understand that Richard Nixon lied. That he was a criminal.
Newspapers that are truly independent, like The Washington Post, can still aggressively investigate anyone or anything with no holds barred.
Nixon had some large achievements in foreign affairs. They will be remembered. But a president probably gets remembered for one thing, and Watergate will head the Nixon list, I suspect.
Nixon's attempts to order subversion of various departments was bound to come out in some form.
Nixon's grand mistake was his failure to understand that Americans are forgiving, and if he had admitted error early and apologized to the country, he would have escaped.
People like to pigeonhole and say, Well, I'm a Washington insider, and you know, that's quite silly. What does that even mean?
The cloud of doubt that surrounds political figures tends to remain and never dissipate or be clarified.
Some newspapers have a hands-off policy on favored politicians. But it's generally very small newspapers or local TV stations.
The biggest rap on me is that I don't find a Watergate every couple of years. Well, Watergate was unique. It's not something Carl Bernstein, I, or the Washington Post caused.
The central dilemma in journalism is that you don't know what you don't know.
Not a season passes without new disclosures showing Nixon's numerous attempts at criminal use of his presidential powers and in fact the scorn he held for the rule of law.